The Durban Platform: Re-commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and the development of a rules-based system applicable to all

Article by Steven Gray

A year ago the Cancun Agreements helped renew confidence in the UN system and establish the basis for a new institutional framework for climate change. However, many fundamental aspects of regime design remained unclear. This year, Durban had to provide clarity on the future of the Kyoto Protocol, progress the design of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and continue developing the institutional framework of the Cancun Agreements. However, the only certainty in evidence throughout the Durban climate change negotiations was that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'. It was unclear if there was going to be any agreement right until the very end of the negotiations. In fact, the negotiations had timed out. Even on Saturday evening - 24 hours after the original timeline for the conclusion of negotiations - there was still no agreement.

In the end, it became clear that only the EU's leadership could provide clarity as to the future of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) because only the EU had committed to continuation of a rules-based system. This commitment was instrumental given that developing countries made agreement on a second commitment period of the KP central to their demands. This left the EU in a unique position to broker a mandate to negotiate an agreement that would include all countries, both developed and developing. The possibility that such a mandate could be agreed was not at all clear in the run up to the conference.

The most vulnerable countries and the most progressive countries joined the EU, creating a robust North-South coalition that, for once, would have preferred to walk out rather than agree to the usual fudge. In the face of this unyielding coalition, supported by global civil society, large developed and developing countries finally had to move. The US had always stated that only a comprehensive regime including all major economies would enable them to be part of a multilateral agreement, therefore once the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) were on board, the US had to endorse the agreement too. Yet, this was not evident until the very last minutes of the conference. India was the last in agreeing the mandate to negotiate a protocol, a legal instrument or "an agreed outcome with legal force" by 2015. This objective is now known as the "Durban Platform for Enhanced Action".

The Durban Platform opens the possibility for the international community to finally redirect emissions paths towards the objective of avoiding global warming of two degrees Celsius or more above pre-industrial temperature levels. The resolution to develop a rules-based system applicable to all is clear now and of paramount importance in tackling climate change. Before Durban a 'pledge and review' system with no international accountability or compliance seemed the only plausible avenue for the international climate regime. And although some governments would still prefer not to be held accountable, the will of the EU together with progressive developing countries - this new coalition of the willing - prevailed.

The EU's commitment to the KP is important for a number of reasons. The KP provides essential metrics to assess countries' actions. It has accounting rules, adopts the science-based concept of CO2 equivalent metrics for all greenhouse gases, and provides for flexibility in terms of compliance options underpinned by a robust compliance system. Renewed commitment to the KP provides continuity of these metrics that are central to the financing of actions on the ground. Although the GCF is not explicitly linked to the KP, it will employ results-based financing approaches which are clearly informed by, and based on, some of the KP metrics and mechanisms. The decision to establish the governing body of the GCF in Durban therefore represents a step towards adoption of a results-based framework for incentivising private investment in climate solutions. Transitional arrangements agreed in Durban will allow the GCF to become fully operational in the next couple of years. Despite the many criticisms of the KP, the fact is that it constitutes an advanced multilateral framework - perhaps too advanced for Canada, Japan, Russia and the US - and has generated most of the learning now in evidence under the international climate regime.

In addition to progress on the KP and financing, Durban made substantial progress on institution building. The agreed package includes decisions on the Adaptation Committee, Climate Technology Centre and Network, the Durban Forum (on capacity building), a Registry of mitigation actions and a Standing Committee on finance. These are some of the structural elements further developed this year, building on the Cancun Agreements. These institutions are needed to facilitate national implementation of actions as well as international cooperation between countries and regions.

The first periodical review of the adequacy of the long-term goal (as compared with what the science tells us is necessary) will start in 2013 and should conclude in 2015. This review is timed to use the results of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in order that together, they can inform and, hopefully, inject substance into the Durban Platform. Without substance and ambition, the Cancun Agreements and the Durban Platform will remain an empty shell and probably result in an increase of global temperatures of 4 degree Celsius or more. Government officials now have a few years to invest political capital to raise domestic ambition and position their governments so they can commit to an all inclusive agreement in 2015.

Tags

The Durban Platform: Re-commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and the development of a rules-based system applicable to all